KC Maddux
Interview with KC Maddux
Questions by Emily Burns
Can you tell us about your current studio and typical daily routine?
I am very fortunate to have a 350 square foot studio near my apartment in Bed-Stuy Brooklyn that I get to visit at almost every day. It has beautiful 11 foot walls that are uninterrupted with windows, so I usually can work on four or five pieces at once. I have divided the studio into a dirty half and a clean half with a plastic sheet wall. Unfortunately, my digital and resin processes get contaminated with the dust from my sculptural MDF work, so keeping them separate is a daily struggle.
Every day is different, depending on where I am in my process. I have days that are very physical when I am working with the sculptural elements. I also spend days entirely on the computer designing or working on photos. My work involves a diverse set of processes: painting, woodworking, casting, shooting and editing images. I am also the subject in the photos.
When were you initially drawn to working with photography? Can you talk about your inclusion of transparencies, which usually float away from the wall, in your installations?
I got into photography for a few reasons. I was interested in working with images of my body and I wanted the depiction to be as close to the “real thing” as possible. Also though, I am suspicious of the use of photographs as documents. If I was going to work with photos, I would have to address them as objects. Photos are objects although we normally regard them purely as images. I also wanted the photos to not operate as windows into another time and place like photos on paper normally do. I wanted them to live in the same space and time as the viewer and function in a symbolic sense, much like words do.
By printing the images on transparencies, it changes their spacial / temporal qualities. Because they are floated off the wall, they make a projection behind them. This doubles the image, and tethers it to the wall and lighting qualities of their display. The doubling also makes the image shift as the viewer changes their vantage point. Standing under the light, the image is clear and in focus, but as the viewer shifts, the image gets confused by its double.
Can you tell us about the irregularly shaped, MDF “framing devices” you construct and your rejection of a rectangular format?
I’m trans. I’m living in a non-binary body with a non-binary identity in a world that is very invested in the gender binary (among other kinds of classifications of people). Structurally, I’m different. And I think being different, and challenging cultural paradigms on a personal level has made it very apparent that there are several paradigms in art practice that may need interrogation as well.
I have a lot of questions about the familiar rectangular picture format that most 2D artists use. I don’t know why it is the standard practice. It doesn’t seem to relate to my vision or my body. The camera aperture is circular, so a photographic print is actually cropped down from what the camera “saw”. Yet there is this insistent use of the rectangular format in Western art history. It’s inherited, from a very Patriarchal Western tradition that is problematic for me. I don’t want to put my ideas in their box, so I make my work in the shape of specific forms that are part of the narrative of the work. The rectangular format is not neutral to me, context is content.
What’s next for you? Do you have any upcoming projects. events, residencies, or other news you’d like to share?
I’m very fortunate to be going to Yadoo for a month long residency, next week. In January, I have a show in San Fransisco with Joel Gregory curated by Ellis Martin. It’s sponsored by the Transgender Cultural District and will be up January 10 at Oros Gallery.
